Three climate contrarians vie to lead House Science Committee

Actual grasp of science apparently not a top qualification for the job.

The House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology hears testimony on climate change in March 2011. If you had the chance to ask questions of one of the world's leading climatologists, would you select a set of topics that would be at home in the heated discussions that take place in the Ars forums? If you watch the video below, you'd find that's precisely what Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) chose to do when Penn State's Richard Alley (a fellow Republican) was called before the House Science Committee, which has already had issues with its grasp of science. Rohrabacher took Alley on a tour of some of the least convincing arguments about climate change, all trying to convince him changes in the Sun were to blame for a changing climate. (Alley, for his part, noted that we have actually measured the Sun, and we've seen no such changes.)

Now, if he has his way, Rohrabacher will be chairing the committee once the next Congress is seated. Even if he doesn't get the job, the alternatives aren't much better.

There has been some good news for the Science Committee to come out of the last election. Representative Todd Akin (R-MO), whose lack of understanding of biology was made clear by his comments on "legitimate rape," had to give up his seat to run for the Senate, a race he lost. Meanwhile, Paul Broun (R-GA), who said that evolution and cosmology are "lies straight from the pit of Hell," won reelection, but he received a bit of a warning in the process: dead English naturalist Charles Darwin, who is ineligible to serve in Congress, managed to draw thousands of write-in votes. And, thanks to limits on chairmanships, Ralph Hall (R-TX), who accused climate scientists of being in it for the money (if so, they're doing it wrong), will have to step down.

In addition to Rohrabacher, the other Representatives that are vying to lead the Committee are Wisconsin's James Sensenbrenner and Texas' Lamar Smith. They all suggest that they will focus on topics like NASA's budget and the Department of Energy's plans for future energy tech. But all of them have been embroiled in the controversy over climate change in the past.

In an interview with Science Insider about his candidacy, Rohrabacher engaged in a bit of triumphalism and suggested that his beliefs were winning out. "There were a lot of scientists who were just going along with the flow on the idea that mankind was causing a change in the world's climate," he said. "I think that after 10 years of debate, we can show that there are hundreds if not thousands of scientists who have come over to being skeptics, and I don't know anyone [who was a skeptic] who became a believer in global warming."

You might expect that next year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report would force Rohrabacher to reexamine his perspective. But it's entirely possible that he'll simply shrug that off as evidence of collusion among the leading scientists; that seems to be the view of the other two candidates. Sensenbrenner has appeared at the annual climate conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, which funds efforts to counter scientific views on climate. And he has had his own YouTube moment where he accused researchers of "scientific fascism" in the wake of the release of e-mails stolen from a research institute.

Smith has kept a much lower profile, but he also seems to have bought into the hype that developed in the wake of the release of those e-mails.

Unfortunate as it is, it's not surprising that someone who rejects mainstream scientific views on the climate is likely to end up in charge of the committee. The primary question will be how this plays out as policy efforts.

Given that the tenets of the Republican party include creationism and denial of science, the qualifications for committees are strength of your backers ($$$) and how well you can influence other Republicans. When you have candidates that say a woman cannot get pregnant after being raped, it clearly shows that the Republicans have failed basic biology. Have the Republicans replaced coffee with tea yet in all of the Capitol restaurants and vending machines?

All of this just reminds me that many politicians are like actors - They play out their roles, look like they know what they're doing, hold the attention of the public - but if you were to throw them into the fields they are supposed to be making decisions about, they would be clueless.

When someone interviews for a particular job position, one generally needs to show some competence or a level of understanding of the task they're applying for. I know it's just wishful thinking, but wouldn't it be nice if politicians actually had to take a test to qualify for the various committees they wish to be on? If they are in a position to set policies, it would be most helpful to at least have some basic comprehension of the subject at hand.

When someone interviews for a particular job position, one generally needs to show some competence or a level of understanding of the task they're applying for. I know it's just wishful thinking, but wouldn't it be nice if politicians actually had to take a test to qualify for the various committees they wish to be on? If they are in a position to set policies, it would be most helpful to at least have some basic comprehension of the subject at hand.

But you just know that, over time, that test will be subject to changes to make it easier for whichever group is holding power to get in.

I'm not an american, so maybe what I'm saying isn't true. But, as an outsider it seems to me that Republicans used to be much more grounded in the past. Is it just me or suddenly being a conservative in the states is a synonym of believing in fairy-tales?

I'm not like the usual non-american american hater that says all americans are dumb and fat and stuff like that. As I see it, some of the greatest achievements in human kind have come from there, and you still produce some of the brightest minds in the world, yet you seem to have a lot really dumb (perhaps willing ignorants is a better term?) people around too. What the hell happened?

All of this just reminds me that many politicians are like actors - They play out their roles, look like they know what they're doing, hold the attention of the public - but if you were to throw them into the fields they are supposed to be making decisions about, they would be clueless.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head.

In mediocre times, over mediocre issues, this would be par for the course. Not too sure we can say that now.

Right now the GOP is suffering from a strongly anti-intellectual bias, particularly in areas that conflict with Evangelical Christian beliefs. Are there any Republicans in the House today that are at least neutral with respect to AGW?

When someone interviews for a particular job position, one generally needs to show some competence or a level of understanding of the task they're applying for. I know it's just wishful thinking, but wouldn't it be nice if politicians actually had to take a test to qualify for the various committees they wish to be on? If they are in a position to set policies, it would be most helpful to at least have some basic comprehension of the subject at hand.

Unfortunately, it's more a case of who-you-know, rather than what-you-know.

Personally, I think that is a key indicator of separating statesmen from politicians.

All of this just reminds me that many politicians are like actors - They play out their roles, look like they know what they're doing, hold the attention of the public - but if you were to throw them into the fields they are supposed to be making decisions about, they would be clueless.

I think this is much worse: We have people who have an actual agenda to undermine something, and they have the means to get into a serious position to do so.

They really should have to answer basic science questions in an intelligent manner to even be considered. Maybe something like from what frames of reference is does the Electromagnetic Tensor appear to be a Magnetic Field or an Electric Field? What are the decay modes of the B± mesons? What differentiates Carbon Dioxide from Water Vapour or Methane as a greenhouse gas?

Stuff anyone could look up and answer, but would require at least a basic level of scientific knowledge to parse, they could write up their answers in an hour, and only the least ridiculous would be kept as contenders.

Rohrabacher doesn't seem that bad, yes he appears to be reading from the non-science handbook, but at least he is trying to get an explanation and it seems possible that he would be amenable to changing his opinion (as that is all it is)... Could be worse.

The big point that he seems to be missing is that it just doesn't matter whether it is anthropogenic warming or not. The fact is, without the ice (which is rapidly shrinking) the earth will continue to heat up and the sea levels will rise, anything we can do to slow the heating of the atmosphere should be done immediately... or we should start investing in boats, one of the two.

All of this just reminds me that many politicians are like actors - They play out their roles, look like they know what they're doing, hold the attention of the public - but if you were to throw them into the fields they are supposed to be making decisions about, they would be clueless.

I think this is much worse: We have people who have an actual agenda to undermine something, and they have the means to get into a serious position to do so.

I'm not an american, so maybe what I'm saying isn't true. But, as an outsider it seems to me that Republicans used to be much more grounded in the past. Is it just me or suddenly being a conservative in the states is a synonym of believing in fairy-tales?

Well they also have most of the born again christians and evangelicals on thei side and invisible sky people is right up there on the fairy tales list Yes, Republicans are (often) willfully ignorant and denying science

"I think that after 10 years of debate, we can show that there are hundreds if not thousands of scientists who have come over to being skeptics, and I don't know anyone [who was a skeptic] who became a believer in global warming."

Is it me or isn't that statement a clear admission that only a tiny fractions of scientists agree with this guy and that he has apparently no interest in talking to the other side of the "debate" ?

All of this just reminds me that many politicians are like actors - They play out their roles, look like they know what they're doing, hold the attention of the public - but if you were to throw them into the fields they are supposed to be making decisions about, they would be clueless.

A useful example is provided by Stuart Drummond.

Mr Drummond is the Mayor of Hartlepool, a town in NE England. Drummond stood as the joke candidate in the 2002 mayoral election. He was the local football team mascot, campaigning in a monkey suit. His only policy was free bananas for school children, and he attended no public debates.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Drummond won the election, beating candidates put forward by the 'regular' political parties. He turned out to be an excellent mayor, and was elected for a third term in 2009. This man made no pretence of being a politician, and had no political training, but admirably succeeded in his position.

All of this just reminds me that many politicians are like actors - They play out their roles, look like they know what they're doing, hold the attention of the public - but if you were to throw them into the fields they are supposed to be making decisions about, they would be clueless.

I think this is much worse: We have people who have an actual agenda to undermine something, and they have the means to get into a serious position to do so.

But what is the source of that agenda? Remember Hanlon's Razor.

I've seen Razors overused in recent times whenever people talk about these kinds of things. Stupid behaviour is far more common than calculated intelligent behaviour, that much is true. However, that only makes an agenda less likely but not impossible.

The Razor's purpouse is to keep you skeptical (the good kind, not the kind where people deny stuff just because f*ck logic) and objective, not to disprove an argument on it's own. It's a general statement that has to be accompanied with context.

We need to drastically change the way we form these "Committees"My suggestions are

1. Any Congressman who wants any science committee seat must go on the T.V are you smarter then a 5th grader. If he or she fails, they must wear a dunce cap till they quit congress. If they pass, they need a PhD in an actual field of science as a minimum requirement. [Sure the 2nd requirement is enough, but who wouldn't want to see how smart are the men and women who we deem qualified to make decisions on our behalf?]

2. We get actual professors from actual universities to chair the science committee.

I'm not an american, so maybe what I'm saying isn't true. But, as an outsider it seems to me that Republicans used to be much more grounded in the past. Is it just me or suddenly being a conservative in the states is a synonym of believing in fairy-tales?

I think what you could call the irrational wing of conservatism has been a major faction in the Republican Party for decades. My sense is that by the end of the Bush administration, the Republicans were so discredited and demoralized that the only wing of the party's voting base that could muster any enthusiasm was the irrational wing, so the GOP had been favoring them more heavily than usual. The pendulum's swinging back the other way now, I think -- you can see that in how the Republican primaries played out.

I'm not an american, so maybe what I'm saying isn't true. But, as an outsider it seems to me that Republicans used to be much more grounded in the past. Is it just me or suddenly being a conservative in the states is a synonym of believing in fairy-tales?

I'm not like the usual non-american american hater that says all americans are dumb and fat and stuff like that. As I see it, some of the greatest achievements in human kind have come from there, and you still produce some of the brightest minds in the world, yet you seem to have a lot really dumb (perhaps willing ignorants is a better term?) people around too. What the hell happened?

It's what just about any country would go through, with an extremist religious group in the middle of your political processes. As our society becomes more tolerant, people who disagree with tolerance become more vocal and virulent, and also look for any way they can find to derail the (inevitable) push to change.

Using the global warming debate as an example, a lot of the money for the anti-AGW "studies" and propaganda is coming from industries that would be gutted or severely hampered if AGW is acknowledged and realistically addressed. Mix that money with workers in the impacted industries who don't want to see their livelihood disappear (can't blame them for that), and add in a large group of people who simply distrust the motivations of government, and you've got this mess we're embroiled in. If people are looking for a way to avoid a painful truth, they'll do it, logic not required.

All of this just reminds me that many politicians are like actors - They play out their roles, look like they know what they're doing, hold the attention of the public - but if you were to throw them into the fields they are supposed to be making decisions about, they would be clueless.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head.

In mediocre times, over mediocre issues, this would be par for the course. Not too sure we can say that now.

Have we truly jumped the shark, as a society?

If you were at least interested in playing the actor you would be inclined to play the role convincingly. It seems to me if you were anti-science(?) you would want the position to just throw it off but luckily it will seem that the private sector will thankfully take over the duties and create a science sector of their own.

Now, as a non American, could someone explain to me why no congressman with a normal understanding of science is trying to get this post?

The House Committee's are assigned mostly by seniority, so the most senior House members are on the most prestigious Committees (Ways and Means, Senate Finance; Appropriations, Budget; Commerce; Foreign Affairs). The process is outlined here : http://clerk.house.gov/committee_info/commfaq.aspx. It is my understanding that the Science Committee is not one of the most prestigious committees.

At one time the house had the Office of Technology Assessment which provided "congressional members and committees with objective and authoritative analysis of the complex scientific and technical issues" (courtesy of Wiki) and had real scientists as members. Then in 1995, the "visionary" Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House in 1995 decided to disband it. The Republicans then invented their own science based on biblical truths and lobbyists interests. That was part of his "Contract with America".

Now, as a non American, could someone explain to me why no congressman with a normal understanding of science is trying to get this post?

The House Committee's are assigned mostly by seniority, so the most senior House members are on the most prestigious Committees (Ways and Means, Senate Finance; Appropriations, Budget; Commerce; Foreign Affairs). The process is outlined here : http://clerk.house.gov/committee_info/commfaq.aspx. It is my understanding that the Science Committee is not one of the most prestigious committees.

At one time the house had the Office of Technology Assessment which provided "congressional members and committees with objective and authoritative analysis of the complex scientific and technical issues" (courtesy of Wiki) and had real scientists as members. Then in 1995, the "visionary" Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House in 1995 decided to disband it. The Republicans then invented their own science based on biblical truths and lobbyists interests. That was part of his "Contract with America".

Congress also routinely consults the executive branch for opinions on legislation--and I don't mean the President, I mean the agencies--State, Defense, Interior, etc. It's understood that these are the subject matter experts, and nobody really expects a politician on a committee to fully know every subject. They should have a basic understanding of the area and knowledge of the broad issues and, more importantly, know where to get reliable answers.

Obviously this is not well enforced and it is easy to abuse, especially in an atmosphere where the House and the Executive are affiliated with rival parties. Lately politicians have seemed less interested in trying to make the best decision for the country and instead just want to inject their own agenda or that of their financial backers.

The simple answer is that there is no one to choose from that's sane, and this is how the legislative process is in the US.

"The roster of each committee is officially approved by a full vote of its house. However those decisions (including who will serve as chair of each committee) are actually made by the party leadership. Considerations in making the assignments include each member's areas of expertise, the interests of their constituents, and seniority. Political favors also often come into play in committee assignments."

Since the republicans control the House, our idiotic rules, including recent changes (pushed by dems last term iirc) on filibusters, give them total control over the voting process.

This means they literally don't have to cater to the progressives at all. And considering all of our republican politicians are idiots, this means the heads of the science committee will also be idiots.

Now, as a non American, could someone explain to me why no congressman with a normal understanding of science is trying to get this post?

This is a House committee. The House of Representatives is currently controlled by the Republican party, the party controlled by fanatics. They don't really have many people with an understanding of science in their ranks.